Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘THE BAD DUDES’ Category

DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY – KERRY’S STATE DEPT. FUNNELED MORE THAN $9 MILLION TO HIS DAUGHTER’S FOUNDATION

We’ve had so many years of this mess! It’s one tiring scandal after the next coming out of the government? So, then – WHY Hillary? Seriously – WHY? Don’t Americans want change?

The Daily Caller reports – More than $9 million of Department of State money has been funneled through the Peace Corps to a nonprofit foundation started and run by Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter, documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation show.

The Department of State funded a Peace Corps program created by Dr. Vanessa Kerry and officials from both agencies, records show. The Peace Corps then awarded the money without competition to a nonprofit Kerry created for the program.

Initially, the Peace Corps awarded Kerry’s group — now called Seed Global Health — with a three-year contract worth $2 million of State Department money on Sept. 10, 2012, documents show. Her father was then the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which oversees both the Department of State and the Peace Corps.

Read More: http://dailycaller.com

KERRY’S DAUGHTER GOT SIX FIGURE SALARY FROM ORG FUNDED BY DADDY

vanessakerry
Some folks are born to wave the flag, others are born to be the daughter of an anti-war traitor senator collecting six figures from an organization funded by the part of government that daddy happens to run.

More than $9 million of Department of State money has been funneled through the Peace Corps to a nonprofit foundation started and run by Secretary of State John Kerry’s daughter, documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation show.

The Department of State funded a Peace Corps program created by Dr. Vanessa Kerry and officials from both agencies, records show. The Peace Corps then awarded the money without competition to a nonprofit Kerry created for the program.

Initially, the Peace Corps awarded Kerry’s group — now called Seed Global Health — with a three-year contract worth $2 million of State Department money on Sept. 10, 2012, documents show. Her father was then the chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, which oversees both the Department of State and the Peace Corps.

Seed secured a four-year extension in September 2015, again without competition. This time, the Peace Corps gave the nonprofit $6.4 million provided by the Department of State while John Kerry was secretary of state.

What did this mean for Vanessa?

Kerry drew a salary from Seed for the first time in 2014. She was the only officer listed on the nonprofit’s 990 tax form to receive compensation — some $140,000 for a reported 30 hours per week.

By this time, daddy was Secretary of State. Which was certainly convenient. It’s also interesting when you have an organization with only one compensated officer.
What does Kerry’s organization do? It exploits student debt to recruit volunteers.

Recognizing that many US health professionals face financial barriers to service, Seed offers the only US loan repayment program for international service. The average US physician graduates from medical school today with more than $170,000 in educational debt; other applicants may have home mortgages or other obligations that would make a GHSP assignment impossible or difficult to accept. Seed believes that debt should not be a barrier to public service and provides up to $30,000 in needs-based assistance for each year served.

You know, debt for people who unlike Vanessa Kerry weren’t born with a silver spoon in their mouths. So they get to do “volunteer” slave labor.

Vanessa Kerry was last in the headlines due to her Iran link.

THE NAKED TRUTH

cover-story-600-ci-2

Mex President threatens: If Trump wins we will call back our citizens – Hooray, Hooray, Hooray

MTMzMTE4ODA5NjE0NTkyNjQz
The President of Mexico threatened at the world economic summit grave consequences if Trump gets the Presidential seat: all the Mexicans in the USA will be going back home to Mexico.

The Mexican government announced they will close their borders to Americans in the event that Donald Trump is elected President of the United States. President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the country fears Americans will flood their country and bring violence and chaos to their streets. “Many Americans have expressed a desire to relocate to our country in the event that Donald Trump becomes President. We cannot have Mexico flooded with criminals and rapists,” he said.

In an interview with Telemundo, Nieto also announced that “further action will be taken by the Mexican government to ensure every single citizen of Mexico currently residing in the United States is brought home safely.” “We will not play around with something as important as the lives of our people. In our eyes and the eyes of every Mexican in the world, Donald Trump is a xenophobic, bigoted terrorist and imperialist who will ruin a country that was once a true friend of Mexico.”

However, many Mexicans who have managed to obtain a U.S. citizenship through legal channels fear this move. Mexico is currently the 3rd largest trading partner of the United States, with $507 billion worth of goods trade in 2013 alone. “Although shutting down the influx of billions of dollars that our people send home every month could cripple our economy, I still believe this is the right thing to do in the long run,” the President argued. “We’ll bring our people home, where it is safe and welcoming. We will be able to offer them better and more civilized working conditions.”

“Besides,” Nieto opined, “If, by some miracle, President Trump somehow manages to get back American jobs from China, which I doubt he’ll succeed, they’ll be needing good workers because they won’t be having any Mexicans anymore. But what they don’t understand is the fact that, if they do get those jobs back, they are going to cost the government much more than a simple low-wage Mexican worker would. And good luck trying to maintain the number one economy in the world then.”

“Too long has the Mexican worker in America been discriminated and oppressed because of his skin color,” the President stated. “And when our people come back home, they will take our food, music, culture and all things Mexican along with them. And in case you’re reading this, Mr. Trump – yes, that does include Mexican prostitutes you’re so secretly fond of. So, you can forget about the Sunday night specials with all-you-can-undress free deals. Because, we know everything.”

“Finally, I would like to add that all of your professional athletes, actors and actresses and pretty much all celebrities can kiss the steroids and drugs goodbye. Your country is built on cocaine, heroin, crack, marijuana (which is a Spanish word, by the way) and steroids that have come to America through Mexico. Thanks to these substances, you were able to have Arnold Schwarzenegger, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, Nirvana and pretty much your entire popular culture. But, I guess you already knew that when you signed up to vote for Mr. Trump and his famous wall. Good luck with him, and good riddance,” President Nieto concluded in his interview.

Head of the ­Defense Intelligence Agency FIRED for Calling our Enemies Radical Jihadis

MICHAEL-FLYNN
For years, I have written and warned of the catastrophic consequences of Obama’s sharia-compliant national security policies. Obama scrubbed all counterterror materials of the jihad doctrine and Islam.

Here is a senior ranking casualty of Obama’s jihad.

“The military fired me for calling our enemies radical jihadis,” By Michael Flynn, NY Post, July 9, 2016:

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is reportedly being vetted by Donald Trump as a potential running mate, was fired as head of the ­Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the winter of 2014 after three decades in the military. Here he tells the real story of his departure from his post and why America is not getting any closer to winning the war on terror.

Two years ago, I was called into a meeting with the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of national intelligence, and after some “niceties,” I was told by the USDI that I was being let go from DIA. It was definitely an uncomfortable moment (I suspect more for them than me).

I asked the DNI (Gen. James Clapper) if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot.

I knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department. After being fired, I left the meeting thinking, “Here we are in the middle of a war, I had a significant amount of combat experience (nearly five years) against this determined enemy on the battlefield and served at senior levels, and here it was, the bureaucracy was letting me go.” Amazing.

At the time, I was working very hard to change the culture of DIA from one overly focused on Washington, DC, to a culture that focused on our forward-based war fighters and commanders. It was not an easy shift, but it was necessary and exactly the reason I was put into the job in the first place.

In the end, I was pissed but knew that I had maintained my integrity and was determined in the few months I had left to continue the changes I was instituting and to keep beating the drum about the vicious enemy we were facing (still are).

I would not change a lick how I operate. Our country has too much at stake.

We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that runs from Pyongyang, North Korea, to Havana, Cuba, and Caracas, Venezuela. Along the way, the alliance picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State.

That’s a formidable coalition, and nobody should be shocked to discover that we are losing the war.

If our leaders were interested in winning, they would have to design a strategy to destroy this global enemy. But they don’t see the global war. Instead, they timidly nibble around the edges of the battlefields from Africa to the Middle East, and act as if each fight, whether in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya or Afghanistan, can be peacefully resolved by diplomatic effort.

This approach is doomed. We have real enemies, dedicated to dominating and eventually destroying us, and they are not going to be talked out of their hatred. Iran, for example, declared war on the United States in 1979 — that’s 37 years ago — and has been killing Americans ever since. Every year, the State Department declares Iran to be the world’s primary supporter of terror. Do you think we’ll nicely and politely convince them to be good citizens and even (as President Obama desires) a responsible ally supporting peace? Do you think ISIS or the Taliban wants to embrace us?No, we’re not going to talk our way out of this war, nor can we escape its horrors. Ask the people in San Bernardino or South Florida, or the relatives of the thousands killed on 9/11. We’re either going to win or lose. There is no other “solution.”

I believe we can and must win. This war must be waged both militarily and politically; we have to destroy the enemy armies and combat enemy doctrines. Both are doable. On military battlefields, we have defeated radical Islamic forces every time we have seriously gone after them, from Iraq to Afghanistan. Their current strength is not a reflection of their ability to overwhelm our armed forces, but rather the consequence of our mistaken and untimely withdrawal after demolishing them.

We have failed to challenge their jihadist doctrines, even though their true believers only number a small fraction of the Muslim world, and even though everybody, above all most living Muslims, knows that the Islamic world is an epic failure, desperately needing economic, cultural and educational reform of the sort that has led to the superiority of the West.

So first of all, we need to demolish the terror armies, above all in the Middle East and Libya. We have the wherewithal, but lack the will. That has to change. It’s hard to imagine it happening with our current leaders, but the next president will have to do it.

As we defeat them on the ground, we must clearly and forcefully attack their crazy doctrines. Defeat on battlefields does great damage to their claim to be acting as agents of divine will. After defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we should have challenged the Islamic world and asked: “How did we win? Did Allah change sides?”

We need to denounce them as false prophets, as we insist on the superiority of our own political vision. This applies in equal measure to the radical secular elements of the enemy coalition. Is North Korea some sort of success story? Does anyone this side of a university seminar think the Cuban people prefer the Castros’ tyranny to real freedom? Is Vladimir Putin a model leader for the 21st-century world?

Just as the Muslim world has failed, so the secular tyrants have wrecked their own countries. They hate us in part because they know their own peoples would prefer to live as we do. They hope to destroy us before they have to face the consequences of their many failures.

Remember that Machiavelli insisted that tyranny is the most unstable form of government.

It infuriates me when our president bans criticism of our enemies, and I am certain that we cannot win this war unless we are free to call our enemies by their proper names: radical jihadis, failed tyrants, and so forth.

With good leadership, we should win. But we desperately need good leaders to reverse our enemies’ successes.

Flynn is the author of the new book, “The Field of Flight,” (St. Martin’s Press), out Tuesday.

– See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2016/07/head-of-the-%C2%ADdefense-intelligence-agency-fired-for-calling-our-enemies-radical-jihadis.html/#sthash.t8bTkULu.dpuf

Do Unions Cause Inequality?

We hear quite a bit about inequality today.  This seems to be the mantra in the waning of the Obama Administration with the President saying, “Income inequality is “the defining challenge of our time.”  This is all code for another of President Obama’s descriptions of the same policy, the need to, “Spread this wealth around,” or in other words “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”

Let’s spread the wealth around and end inequality.  One of the President’s and the Democrat Party’s most powerful allies in this long march to the promised land of a worker’s paradise where everyone is truly equal are the unions.

At one time it was dangerous to belong to a union in the United States.  They were considered illegal combinations in restraint of trade even though freedom of association has long been considered a right under the First Amendment to the Constitution.  People died organizing and participating in strikes.  Names like the Matewan Massacre, the Haymarket Riot, and the Battle of Blair Mountain convey the very real image of war that was fought for the right to organize.  This was a war that was decisively won by the unions.  This war for the allegiance of American labor was not won through the superior organizing techniques of the union bosses.  From the major battles of the 1800s and the early 1900s the unions were failing.  The workers just didn’t want to join.  Then along came FDR and his New Deal.  He passed pro-union legislation and with the patronage and support of the Federal Government unions not only flourished they triumphed.

According to the Progressives monopolies are terrible.  They benefit few and penalize many.  Never mind that before Rockefeller established his powerful Standard Oil a gallon of kerosene  cost 58 cents and after he had gained 90% of the market the price had fallen to 7 cents.  Or that under Carnegie’s US Steel, which controlled all steel production, the price of steel dropped.  Monopolies in production were universally branded as evil and they were made illegal by the progressives under Teddy Roosevelt “The Trust Buster” as he rigorously enforced the Sherman Antitrust Act and saved the people from the exploitation of efficiency and lower prices.

Monopolies were and are considered universally evil except when it comes to unions.  Unions have been allowed to exercise absolute control of entire industries.  Just ask yourself, how many auto worker unions are there?  How about Electricians, plumbers, carpenters?  How many unions compete with the NEA or SEIU?  These powerful unions have gained strangleholds over entire sectors of our economy.  They exercise coercive authority to allow some to work at their given professions and to deny others the same opportunity.  Through their unlimited power to exact unwilling support from anyone in their grasp they gain billions to support the very politicians who pass laws giving them the power to extort the money.  Through their government granted authority to become the sole negotiators of everyone’s pay, even those who don’t belong to the union, they effectively come to control the employers to a major extent.

Using the government awarded monopolistic and coercive power to drive up wages and benefits they drive up operating costs and prices.  By artificially driving up the wages of their members so that they can then collect bigger dues they distort the market place and artificially force down the wages of non-union workers.  You see unions can force wages above the levels that would be achieved in a free market only by limiting the supply with the threat to withhold labor if their demands aren’t met.

Workers in the private sector have been rejecting the big union cartels for generations.  Their participation rate has fallen from a high of 35% in the 1950s to its present dismal level of 11.1%.  According to the Washington Examiner, “The job sectors with the highest unionization rates in 2015 were in “protective service occupations,” primarily law enforcement, at 36.3 percent and education at 35.5 percent. The lowest rates were for retail sales at 3.3 percent and farming and forestry at 1.9 percent.”

And even this declining state of unionism is only possible because of the heavy hand of government patronage.  Rick Berman, president of the business-backed Center for Union Facts, attributed the stability in the numbers to pro-union policies under President Obama. “Union membership is apparently receiving a boost from an activist National Labor Relations Board. By tilting the scales in favor of labor organizers, the board and the sympathetic Obama administration are propping up Big Labor rather than helping the rank-and-file.”

As private sector employees bailed out of unions every time they had a chance, the employees-for-life in the civil service bureaucracy organized to gain an inordinate level of power over the government.  In 2009, for the first time in American history, government employees accounted for more than half the nation’s union membership.

Even FDR, the patron saint of unions warned about the distortions and disruptions of public sector unions.

In the President’s Aug. 16, 1937 correspondence with Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees he said “meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.”

He added, “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.  It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management.”

And, “The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations.”

He continued, “The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

He concluded, “The pay is fixed by Congress and the workmen are represented by the members of Congress in the fixing of Government pay.  In other words, you would not have the representatives of the majority as the sole bargaining agents?  Not in the government, because there is no collective contract.  It is a very different case. There isn’t any bargaining, in other words, with the government; therefore the question does not arise.”

This is in effect a money laundering scheme.  The unions bargain with the politicians who raise the pay of their members which raises the dues collected by the unions who then contribute money to the very politicians who raise their pay.  And even in the public sector when given the choice to remain in unions or leave when given the chance as in Wisconsin they are leaving in droves.

So how do unions cause inequality?  By controlling the labor in major industries they distort the free market by artificially raising the cost of labor over what it should be according to production costs and sales receipts.  This in turn contributes to economic misallocations of resources and malinvestments which sets the stage for the creation of bubbles, booms, and busts.

In America all people are equal before the law and all should have equality of opportunity.  However, it is a fact apparent to anyone who has interacted with anyone else that all people are not equal in talent, motivation, experience, or desires.  Therefore inequality as a result of the varying application of these four attributes will always exist.

Such horror shows as the USSR, Cuba, and Venezuela have tried this through collectivist pipedreams that became the nightmares of their captive people.

If unions are all about the free association of workers go to Chicago or New York and try to start a competing carpenters union.  See how well that goes.  I would suggest that you wear a hard hat.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2016 Contact Dr. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens

 

WHY DON’T MUSIM TERRORISTS KIDHAP RUSSIANS

Russian Army

DNC Chair Squirms When Asked This About the FBI

300x200_debbie-wasserman-schultz
No matter how bad your day may be, at least you don’t have to answer whether your presumptive presidential nominee should cooperate with the FBI’s criminal probe of her.

So be glad you’re not Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who found herself caught on national television between Hillary Clinton and federal law enforcement.

The Washington Examiner reports:

“Those are questions you’d have to ask each of Hillary Clinton and anyone associated with Hillary Clinton,” Schultz said when asked about the possibility on Fox Business. “I’m doing my job as a member of Congress, first and foremost, representing my district, and making sure we can get ready while this primary is unfolding, to make sure we can launch our nominee from Philadelphia,” she said, referencing the site of the upcoming Democratic national convention.

Schultz conveniently neglected to mention she is also Chair of the Democratic National Committee, and is the person in charge of coordinating a billion-dollar nationwide effort to elect Hillary Clinton president. – See more at: http://americanactionnews.com/articles/dnc-chair-squirms-when-asked-this-about-the-fbi#sthash.yap5cCab.dpuf

DIRTY Karl Rove plotting to make Mitt Romney president?

Strategy could set up draft of 2012 candidate at convention

mitt-romney-loser
NEW YORK – Is the ultimate aim of campaign strategist Karl Rove’s stop-Trump plot to make Mitt Romney the 2016 Republican nominee?

At a meeting of Republican governors and donors in Washington, D.C., last month, Rove – dubbed the “architect” of George W. Bush’s election success – launched a movement to prevent Donald Trump from gaining the 1,237 delegates he needs in the primaries to win the GOP nomination on the first ballot at the party’s convention in Cleveland in July.

Last weekend, Rove stepped up his efforts to block Trump, arguing his case at the American Enterprise Institute’s World Forum in Sea Island, Georgia, a closed-to-the-press meeting of billionaire GOP donors, tech company CEOs and Republican establishment leaders.

Hillary for prosecution, not president! Join the sizzling campaign to put Mrs. Clinton where she really belongs

The highlight of the meeting was Rove’s presentation of focus group findings in which he argued that encouraging votes for Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Ohio Gov. John Kasich could derail Trump’s march to the nomination by denying him the plurality of votes he needs to win March 15 “winner take all” primaries in Ohio and Florida.

Rove’s ‘Draft Romney’ strategy

As WND reported Tuesday, if Trump wins both Ohio and Florida, stopping him from gaining 1,237 delegates in the remaining GOP primary contests will be difficult, if not impossible.

By pushing votes for Cruz, Rubio or Kasich, Rove appears to be angling for a “brokered” or “contested” nominating convention in which all delegates would be free to vote their preferences if the first ballot fails to produce a winner.

Mitt Romney’s availability as a possible consensus choice at a brokered convention gained credence with in an interview last Sunday with Chris Wallace on “Fox News Sunday.”

“Just slam the door on it. Close the door. Unambiguous – you will not run for president?” Wallace asked Romney after several failed attempts to get him to say whether or not he would accept a draft in a contested nominating convention.

“I’m not running for president, and I won’t run for president,” Romney said.

“OK. This is the kind of thing – the question I’m going to ask you now is why people hate reporters,” Wallace responded. “You say you won’t run for president, but you didn’t rule out a draft. So here is an opportunity.”

From there, the exchange got even more pointed.

ROMNEY: OK, Chris, this is so ridiculous. I’m not going there. You’ve got three people who I’d like to see as the nominee. I’m going to endorse one of them. I’m going to campaign with one of them.

I’m not running for president. I’m not planning on running for president. And that’s what it’s all about.

You got four people running for president on this stage. One of them will be our nominee.

WALLACE: And as General George Sherman said, if nominated, I will not run, if elected, I will not serve?

ROMNEY: That’s an absurd — in my opinion, that’s an absurd thing to say. No Republican should say that. That makes no sense for someone to say if they were drafted by their country, that they’d say no.

What I can tell you is I’m not running for president. ’m not going to run for president. I’m going to support one of these four people to be our nominee. I’m supporting three of them right now. And that means that we’re going to get one of those people as our nominee.

WALLACE: You realize that by saying what you just said that people are going to say he opened the door to a draft?

Romney concluded the discussion by making it clear he would not vote for Trump under any circumstances, preferring to write in a candidate if the real estate billionaire were to become the GOP presidential nominee.

Robo for Rubio, Kasich

On Tuesday, Fox News played a robocall Romney recorded supporting Rubio and Kasich while attacking Trump. It targeted the four states holding GOP primaries March 8 – Michigan, Mississippi, Idaho and Hawaii.

Romney spokesmen insisted the calls were not intended to endorse Rubio or Kasich, adding more evidence Romney had decided to go along with Rove’s strategy of promoting votes for Trump competitors.

The Romney campaign also told Fox News that the robocalls did not mean Romney was entering the race himself. But they gave no indication Romney would rule out a draft nomination.

“Gov. Romney has offered and is glad to help Sen. Marco Rubio, Sen. Ted Cruz and Gov. John Kasich in any way he can,” a source close to Romney said in a statement. “He’s been clear that he believes that Donald Trump is not the best person to represent the Republican Party and will do what he can to support a strong nominee who holds conservative values to win back the White House.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/karl-rove-plotting-to-make-mitt-romney-president/#hSZMSeT24LMW4Rfm.99

PRAY FOR THIS -Sharpton Promises To Leave U.S. If Trump Wins Presidency

qmeme_1456494143800_687
Would you be happy if Al Sharpton left America if Trump wins the general election? Or would you rather have him stay here and continue to race bait?

The View’s co-host, Raven Symone, also stated that she would leave the US if any Republican gets NOMINATED. Well, be prepared to say good-bye:

Why Hillary’s Talking Points Don’t Add Up

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks during a press conference at the United Nations in New York
Using the United Nations as a backdrop to theatrically remind people of her foreign policy gravitas, Hillary Clinton held what the UN referred to as a press “encounter” outside of the UN Security Council chamber on March 10th. Hillary repeated over and over again her well-rehearsed talking points regarding the private e-mail account she used during her tenure as Secretary of State. Figuring that it is better to beg for forgiveness rather than refrain from doing something that could later be considered wrong-doing, Hillary said that “looking back” she now thinks it would have been better if she had used one device connected to the official government e-mail account and a separate device connected to her own personal e-mail system. The former Secretary of State just thought at the time it would be more convenient to use only one device for both her personal and work-related e-mails, connected to a server that had been previously set up for her husband’s New York office, rather than two separate devices and e-mail accounts.

Hillary’s defenses amounted to the following four talking points: (1) She obeyed all laws and regulations that were in effect at the time and no classified materials were communicated via her e-mails. Moreover, what she did was not unusual. Other former Secretaries of State did the same thing; (2) She made sure to send many of her work-related e-mails to State Department and other federal government employees, whom she assumed were on the official .gov e-mail account. Therefore, such e-mails would have been captured and automatically archived on the government system; (3) She bent over backwards to turn over all e-mails that were even “possibly” work-related to the State Department in response to its request for such e-mails from all prior Secretaries of State. Hillary only got rid of the e-mails she determined to be personal (which may have been as many as 30,000, although the precise number was not entirely clear from her remarks); and (4) it is the responsibility of each federal employee to determine which of his or her e-mails will be regarded as personal and which ones will be determined to be work-related, which is precisely what Hillary said she did in making the selection of the e-mails turned over to the State Department.

None of these defenses stand up to any objective scrutiny.

First of all, there were archive regulations in effect in 2009, which required federal employees — including Hillary while she was Secretary of State — to preserve her work-related e-mails. The “every-one did it” defense holds no water because Hillary’s use of her own private server, set up in her New York residence, was reportedly unprecedented. Hillary rejected the suggestion that an independent third party examine her server including its hard drive, which raises the inevitable question of whether she is trying to hide something. Her privacy rationale is bogus, considering her decision to blend personal and work-related e-mails on the same personal account hosted by the same home-installed server in the first place. All Hillary could say was that the server “will remain private.”

Moreover, even if Hillary’s contention that she sent many of her work-related e-mails to government employees, expecting them to be automatically archived, is true, such action alone would not address any e-mails she may have sent to foreign government officials or to prospective donors to the Clinton Foundation that were not also sent to federal government employees.

Hillary’s defense that it is up to each federal employee to decide individually which of his or her e-mails are personal and which are work-related does not mean that such decision cannot be examined by the government and remedied if necessary. In Hillary’s case, that is impossible due to her refusal to turn over the server sitting in her residence to an independent examiner. We have to take her word that she turned over all e-mails that were even “possibly” work-related which, given her track record, is not very reliable. One question has already arisen regarding Hillary’s trip to Libya in October 2011 when she was photographed with “her handheld device in her hand,” according to South Carolina GOP Rep. Trey Gowdy, the chief congressional Benghazi investigator. Congressman Gowdy said that “we have no e-mails from that day. In fact, we have no e-mails from that trip.”

While most of the questions asked during Hillary Clinton’s press encounter dealt with her e-mail situation, she was also asked how she could reconcile her long advocacy of women’s rights with her foundation’s acceptance of donations from countries with abysmal human rights records involving women and girls. Hillary ducked the question. Hillary said that her advocacy of women’s rights issues over the years is unquestionable. Hillary added that she had no doubt that “people who want to support the foundation know full well what it is we stand for and what we’re working on.” Apparently taking money from countries like Saudi Arabia, where women are still treated as chattel, does not in Hillary’s mind call into question how committed she and her foundation really are to “working on” ending violence and discrimination against women and girls in Saudi Arabia and other human rights abusing Middle Eastern countries that are sources of foundation donations.

In sum, Hillary Clinton tried to use the typical Clintonian evasive tactics, hoping the press and the American people will move on to other matters. The Clintons have gotten away with their “what difference does it make” attitude many times before. Hopefully, the truth will finally catch up with them this time, especially if Hillary, as expected, does run for president.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN